Study: Inefficient Public Pension Investment Costs Taxpayers About $100 Million A Year

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on

LinkedIn

Local systems forfeited some $2.9 billion over 30 years by not investing with PRIM,
probably billions more if fees and compounding are included

Read coverage of this report in the Boston Herald, The Bond Buyer, and Associated Press.

BOSTON – The commonwealth should set a five-year deadline for 102 public pension systems to transfer their assets to the Pension Reserves Investment Management (PRIM) Board, the management authority for the Massachusetts State Employee Retirement System (MSERS) and the Massachusetts Teachers Retirement System (MTRS), according to a new Policy Brief published by Pioneer Institute.

Download "Massachusetts Public-Pension Investment Reform"

From 1986 to 2015, the difference in gross returns between non-state public pensions (i.e., excluding the MTRS and MSERS) and PRIM implies a taxpayer loss of more than $2.9 billion. Dr. Iliya Atanasov, author of “Massachusetts Public-Pension Investment Reform,” finds that the systems forfeited nearly $1.6 billion from 2000 to 2015 alone by not investing with PRIM, or $97 million a year.

The real performance gap is almost certainly much larger, since the estimates were based on annual beginning assets and gross returns, which don’t take into account PRIM’s lower investment expenses and the effects of compounding. PRIM offers better asset allocation and cash management, lower investment fees and other costs, and more attractive investment options due to its size and market power.

“Local taxpayers are ultimately on the hook when pensions are underfunded,” said Pioneer Executive Director Jim Stergios. “This is going to sound really elementary, but it’s critical we don’t forfeit billions of dollars in investment returns.”

The MSERS and the MTRS account for about two thirds of all Massachusetts public pension assets and their assets are statutorily managed by PRIM. A 2007 state law required that pension systems that are less than 65 percent funded and whose average returns trailed PRIM’s by at least 2 percentage points over the prior decade transfer their assets to PRIM.

Dr. Atanasov’s analysis says the law was a step in the right direction, but did not go far. For example, a system that has annualized returns of 8 percent over a decade would reap 20 percent more than one whose returns were two percentage points lower.

Even before passage of the 2007 legislation, more local systems had begun to move their assets to PRIM. Between 2000 and 2015, the number of local systems fully invested in PRIM nearly doubled from 19 to 37, and the number that were partially invested more than tripled from 17 to 53.

From 1986 to 1996, PRIM achieved annualized gross returns of 11.45 percent, while systems that were partially invested achieved 10.62 percent and returns for non-PRIM funds were 10.32 percent.

From 2000 to 2015, PRIM’s annualized gross returns were 5.8 percent, partially invested systems generated 5.4 percent and non-PRIM systems returned 5.3 percent. The gulf for both time spans adds up to an unrealized $2.09 billion, not including forgone compounding and PRIM’s lower fees.

Short of the five-year deadline for transferring local pension assets to PRIM, state policy makers should at least require all local systems that are less than 90 percent funded to transfer their assets. Municipalities should also have the power to compel local retirement boards to move their assets to PRIM. Retirement boards can be given a broad range of investment options under PRIM’s segmentation program.

About the Author

Iliya Atanasov is Pioneer’s former Senior Fellow on Finance, who spearheaded research on pension management, budget analysis, infrastructure and municipal performance. Iliya received his PhD in Political Science from Rice University, where he was a Presidential Fellow. He also holds BAs in Business Administration, Economics and Political Science/International Relations from the American University in Bulgaria.

About Pioneer

Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts through civic discourse and intellectually rigorous, data-driven public policy solutions based on free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government.

Get Connected!

Related posts:

Study Finds Pension Obligation Bonds Could Worsen T Retirement Fund’s Financial Woes

June 21, 2022

A new study published by Pioneer Institute finds that issuing pension obligation bonds (POBs) to refinance $360 million of the MBTA Retirement Fund’s (MBTARF’s) $1.3 billion unfunded pension liability would only compound the T’s already serious financial risks.

Study: Pandemic Pension Bonus Bills Would Cost Billions and Unfairly Favor Highly Compensated Public Employees

October 26, 2021

Two identical bills to reward public employees with a retirement credit bonus for working during the COVID-19 emergency are currently pending in each chamber of the Massachusetts Legislature. The bills would add billions of dollars in liabilities to public pension funds and reward workers based on their compensation, years of service and age rather than the type or duration of the work performed during the emergency, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

Public Statement on the MA Legislature’s Blanket Pension Giveaway

July 26, 2021

Beacon Hill just put on full display what happens when it is awash in money. House Bill 2808 is entitled, “An Act relative to providing a COVID-19 retirement credit to essential public workers.” It calls for adding three years of additional retirement credit to state “employees who have volunteered to work or have been required to work at their respective worksites or any other worksite outside of their personal residences during the COVID-19 state of emergency…” But upon reading the brief bill, it quickly becomes clear that this legislation is irresponsible in the extreme.

Now anyone can become a local pension system expert... A…

Study Estimates $27 Million In Savings Annually From Consolidation Of Public Pensions

0 Comments

April 19, 2017

Local retirement systems generate heavy costs, larger fiduciary…

Study: Inefficient Public Pension Investment Costs Taxpayers About $100 Million A Year

Get Connected!

Study Finds Pension Obligation Bonds Could Worsen T Retirement Fund’s Financial Woes

Study: Pandemic Pension Bonus Bills Would Cost Billions and Unfairly Favor Highly Compensated Public Employees

Public Statement on the MA Legislature’s Blanket Pension Giveaway

Whistleblowers Were Proven Right: MBTARF Was Underreporting Its Unfunded Pension Liabilities

Study Says State Unfunded Pension Liability Rising Despite Recent Reforms, Overall Strong Economy

So you want to know something about pensions?

Study Estimates $27 Million In Savings Annually From Consolidation Of Public Pensions

Study: Evidence Suggests MBTA Pension Low-Balled Costs And Liabilities

Study: Inefficient Public Pension Investment Costs Taxpayers About $100 Million A Year

Study: T Pensions Would Be Worth $902M More Had Assets Been Managed by State Pension Fund After 2000

A $49 Million Sweetheart Deal: MBTA Employee Sick Time Perk Enhances Pensions

Study: Massachusetts Public Pension Systems Unprepared for Next Recession